Kelton2
861 金持ち名無しさん、貧乏名無しさん (ｱｳｱｳｳｰ Sac3-PzP0)[sage] 2021/02/18(木) 01:38:38.19 ID:nFEYGBYDa
MMTとは何かと言われれば
信用貨幣論、表券主義、内生的貨幣供給論、機能的財政論、MCT辺りをまとめたものという認識だ
この辺りがまず最低限の理論的基盤
フットボールのスコア、名刺、貨幣ピラミッド、運転手つきの自動車、バスタブorシンク
MMTとは？
レンズ、フクロウ、地動説、
税駆動、名刺、支給先行、
フットボールのスコア、
統合政府、貨幣ピラミッド、
部門別会計分析、
バスタブ、シンク、
100本の骨、ビーバー、
雇用版羊毛小屋、運転手つきの自動車。
政府の赤字は国民の黒字。
家計と国家財政は違う。
税は財源ではない。
唯一疑問は、
輸入は本当に便益か？
81 名無しさん＠お腹いっぱい。[sage] 2021/02/18(木) 08:25:04.78 ID:WzZNbTon
そもそも最近主流の経済学って動的マクロはじめ数学的に恐ろしく難解なことになってて
現実とはかけ離れ過ぎてるからな
MMTはその辺りを無価値だとバッサリ切り捨てた
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzgTMQ6OEuoixpypzm7XhWKuOr2y8qhLzi_-D0kcad6ASKIvje9fQkgnWAvZ6vkc8IWDfJsrt-S8e3I-i00f1KF6oY99n56BO_K9eMR0VbGGhG2QHXuwvkWIEsTMD2K3b8F9c2/s1600/IMG_3959.JPG
再改訂版：
MMT1
ジェームズ・ガルブレイス
ケルトン教授1
ケルトン教授2
エレン・ブラウン女史が語る、「MMT実証国」の日本に消費増税が不要な理由 2019/7/12
ミッチェルMitchell 2019 詳細目次
#32 レイ&ケルトン ユーロ関連
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/08/mmt-euro-and-greatest-prediction-of.html
Mitch Green作成スライド：
#2:31~32 Deirdre McCloskey The Rhetoric of Economics（1985）
Kemton3
追加：
MMT Is A Lens, Not A Regime (2017)Michell's lecture
https://youtu.be/XK13evETnB4 [4:21]
レンズの比喩はフクロウの比喩のコンセプトに近い
ミッチェルのレンズの比喩 Mitchell-lens
MMTerは比喩を駆使する：ミッチェル2019(ラーナー機能的財政の基本的な諸関係を改変)
＿＿＿＿＿＿ https://youtu.be/XK13evETnB4
｜ ｜・レンズの比喩＆フクロウの比喩☆
｜ 政策 ｜［Ｅ］２０～２４ https://youtu.be/oLntiX4AeWc
｜＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・自動運転ハンドル(さらに金融緩和アクセル、
＿＿＿｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿消費税ブレーキ)といった自動車の比喩
／ ＼［Ｄ］１７～１９
／ ／雇用 ＼・95本の骨/100匹の犬の比喩☆
／＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＼https://youtu.be/2vTjLwYCi24
｜ Ｙ所得 ｜［Ｃ］１１～１６
｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
｜ ｜ ｜ Ｉ投資 ｜
｜Ｃ（Ｙ） ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・投資＝もう一本の蛇口？
｜消費 ｜ ｜Ｉ（ｉ） ｜ ｉ利子率 ｜
｜性向 ｜ ｜投資 ｜ ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
｜ ｜ ｜機会 ｜ ｜ｉ ｜ ｜Ｍ ｜［Ｂ］ ９～１０
｜＿＿＿｜ ｜＿＿＿｜ （Ｍ，Ｙ） ｜貨幣｜・バスタブ、シンクの比喩
（［Ａ］） ［Ｆ］ 流動性選好 https://youtu.be/mYVaR2g0M_0
２５～２６ ／
／
歴史［Ａ］１～８, ［Ｇ］２７～３０, ［Ｈ］３１～３３現状，未来
☆はMitchell2019で紹介
ラーナー『雇用の経済学』#8のレンガの家の比喩をベースにした
https://i.gyazo.com/143564bc8c2461751cf8010cc481182b.jpg
ラーナーは投資と消費で２系統の循環ポンプをイメージしている
https://i.gyazo.com/3eb430b52f54d265597af06cdc119ea5.png
雇用の経済学より
天気予報と経済予測は似ている（グッドウィンを参照）
キーン 金融危機 https://i.gyazo.com/5f6aacb82fbe6e84a2bfab7e673524de.png
ローレンツ バタフライ効果 https://i.gyazo.com/0aacdca901526b03569b78447888c335.png
#23:370
lends
tin shed
the rubbish bin
ビル・ミッチェル「赤字財政支出 101 – Part 3」（2009年3月2日） — 経済学101
参考：
機械と身体: 経済学的言説におけるレトリックとメタファー長尾伸一
山本レトリック論
v
レトリカル・エコノミクス―経済学のポストモダン 単行本 – 1992/12
MMTerは比喩、レトリックを駆使する
ラーナー源流の自動運転自動車の比喩⬇︎
Lerner 1951
The Economics of Employment, 1951
（Lerner, A. 1941. The economic steering wheel. University Review, June, 2-8.の改訂版再録）
邦訳『雇用の経済学」 (1965年) (現代経済学名著選集〈第12 明治大学経済学研究会編〉)
Functional Finance and Full Employment: Lessons from Lerner for Today? by Mathew Forstater
The Jerome Levy Economics Institute July 1999
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b75d/0be6e3e950e19e9a5902a31082ca93c560e9.pdf
The Jerome Levy Economics Institute July 1999
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b75d/0be6e3e950e19e9a5902a31082ca93c560e9.pdf
Kelton 2003
Common currency lessons from Europe
Have member states forsaken their economic steering wheels? Stephanie Bell
（Dollarization: Lessons from Europe for the Americasに所収）
Mitchell 2009
McConnell Macroeconomics 18th(2009^1960) p.734https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyC8llV5EXOtHxEMjcDFmqHnPgyq7B14OXZBLVrZqSvAV2OJZgaBNxtLA32Qs1maUY5KCGcNf8Dvrr2WnKBS3C_SgrcECVxRrT_g_NN1BBSq_2KMqnGlRLQGry6czdskL9YtTV/s1600/IMG_0500.PNG
https://i.gyazo.com/4bf0ff284de8ec6f6f1a1225bd31110f.jpg
Lerner 1951
Friedman 1963
Lerner 1951
Friedman 1963
レイに始まるバスタブ、シンク⬇︎
Wray2012 #1.3
Kelton's responce
The Economy Is Like A Bathtub 2016/9/29 Kelton
ミッチェルも新著で紹介した100匹の犬と95本の骨⬇︎
#14:213 “The tale of 100 dogs and 95 bones”（＆5:69）
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/06/14213-tale-of-100-dogs-and-92-bones.html
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/06/14213-tale-of-100-dogs-and-92-bones.html
Warren Mosler MMT: Unemployment, dogs and bones.
ケルトンのハトでも鷹でもないフクロウ⬇︎
Stephanie Kelton: What Is A Deficit Owl - 2016
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IW-VapeCUco
Stephanie Kelton's MMT Coloring Book 2013
ミッチェルのレンズの比喩はフクロウのコンセプトに近い⬇︎
MMT Is A Lens, Not A Regime (2017)Michell's lecture
https://youtu.be/XK13evETnB4 [4:21]
#2:32 トーマス・クーン Thomas Kuhnの1962年の本 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions（邦題：科学革命の構造）
ミッチェルのレンズの比喩 Mitchell-lens
ケルトン教授1
ケルトン教授2
ミッチェルMitchell 2019 詳細目次
#21:333 Kelton…owl…
Mitch Green作成スライド：
参考：
ステファニー・ケルトン教授来日及び研究会開催[2019/7/17]のお知らせ — 経済学101
726 sorata31 (ﾜｯﾁｮｲ 8b24-Rk9P)[sage] 2019/06/19(水) 14:07:15.83 ID:C62wCinl0ケルトン教授が三橋TVに出演とのこと。
https://youtu.be/CY0xUs_gqZE
【藤井聡】ケルトン教授を招聘した、ＭＭＴ国際シンポジウム[2019年7月16日]を開催します 表現者クライテリオン
https://the-criterion.jp/mail-magazine/m20190610/
FUNCTIONAL FINANCE AND THE FEDERAL DEBT Author(s): ABBA P. LERNER 1943
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/03/functional-finance-and-federal-debt.html
abba lerner The economic steering wheel 1941
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/06/abba-lerner.html
ケルトン教授 Stephanie Kelton (born 1969)MMT(Modern Monetary Theory)現代貨幣理論
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/03/mmt.html
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton
別バージョンあり
Stephanie Kelton: What Is A Deficit Owl - YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IW-VapeCUco
Stephanie Kelton's MMT Coloring Book 2013
1:14
MMT Coloring Book
What Does the Owl Say?
#1 THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIKE YOUR FAMILY
#2 CHINA IS NOT OUR BANKER
#3 UNCLE SAM IS NOT BROKE
#4 THE U.S. WILL NOT END UP LIKE GREECE
#5 CUTTING SPENDING WILL NOT CREATE JOBS
#6 A BALANCED BUDGET IS NOT PRO-GROWTH
#7 SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT BROKEN
#8 DEFICITS DO NOT TAKE AWAY SAVINGS
#9 GOVERNMENT DEBT DOES NOT BURDEN OUR CHILDREN
#10 GOVERNMENT DEFICITS ARE NOT SCARY
The public is badly misinformed on issues related to our monetary
system, government deficits and the national debt.
GET THE FACTS
Keynesian Deficit Doves versus MMT Deficit Owls | Money4nothingchicks4free
https://money4nothingchicks4free.wordpress.com/mmt-meedias/keynesian-deficit-doves-versus-mmt-deficit-owls/Keynesian Deficit Doves versus MMT Deficit Owls
So, here are some contrasts between the two approaches on seven important issues. Out of these contrasts, there should be much material for short explanations about why MMT is superior to Keynesian approaches.
1. Government deficit spending for recovery — Keynesian deficit dove position: provide high fiscal multiplier Government deficit spending or tax cuts to stimulate aggregate demand.
MMT position: provide high multiplier Government deficit spending: targeted on payroll tax cuts that will get more money into the hands of working people quickly; providing revenue sharing grants to States for maintaining existing State-level jobs; and direct job creation (job guarantee for anyone who want to work)
Significance: MMT says it’s not just about increasing aggregate demand and GDP. It’s about targeting and getting rid of unemployment!
2. Government fiscal policy over the business cycle — Keynesian deficit dove position: deficit spend in bad (less than full employment) times; have government surpluses in good (full employment) times.
MMT position: Government surpluses withdraw net financial assets from the private sector. Therefore, they should only be run when the private sector is over-heated and demand-pull inflation exists. Since the size of the Government deficit, without explicit Government attempts to raise taxes, is determined by 1) the level of savings of the private sector; and 2) the level of the trade deficit (surplus), it is perfectly possible that the Government may have to run deficits continuously to maintain full employment, if there is demand leakage from a trade deficit and/or private savings that the Government must make up for by deficit spending.
Significance: MMT says: ”Don’t worry about this simple fiscal rule.” Whether deficits are needed depends on the situation and specifically on our trade balance and our desires to save in the private sector.
3. Long Term Deficit Reduction Planning — Keynesian deficit dove position: We can and should engage in long-term deficit reduction planning since the fiscal policy can control the deficit, and since there is a long-term inter-temporal budgetary constraint on Government spending due to the potential of the bond markets to impose an insupportable interest burden on the budget when continuous deficits, increasing national debts, and increasing debt-to-GDP ratios accelerate too fast and/or get too high.
MMT position: We cannot and should not formulate or implement plans for long-term deficit reduction. First, because such plans assume that Government fiscal policy can accurately predict the effect on deficits of its attempts to close deficits by austerity measures. In fact, however, raising taxes or cutting programs always reduces net financial assets in the private sector, which in turn reduces aggregate demand and the level of economic activity, which, in its turn, drives up Government expenditures and, inadvertently increases its deficits. We already see this in the UK. the austerity measures of the Conservative/Liberal coalition government aren’t decreasing its deficits, but are increasing them, and driving the UK closer to a double-dip recession.
Second, because we should not be distorting fiscal policy by targeting it at deficits and surpluses, national debts, or debt-to-GDP ratios at all. Fiscal policy should, instead, be targeted on fulfilling public purposes including full employment, price stability, the elimination of poverty, providing universal health care as a right, maintaining public safety, creating an excellent educational system for all of our children, strengthening the social safety net, re-inventing the energy foundations of the economy, and so on. These, and not deficit reduction or debt-to-GDP ratio stabilization should be our real goals, because for fiat currency systems with floating exchange rates, non-convertibility of currency, and no external debts in any other currency or pegs to any external currency or basket of such currencies, there is no inter-temporal or any other kind of budgetary constraint on Government deficit spending imposed by previous deficit spending.
That is, it doesn’t matter what such a Government’s national debt is, or what it’s debt-to-GDP ratio is. It still has the same capacity it has always had to buy anything it wants to buy for sale in its own currency, since it can always spend/create what its legislature appropriates.
Third, unlike Keynesian deficit doves, who evidently think that without long-term deficit planning and control of deficits, interest rates will rise catastrophically, and eventually consume the Federal budget; MMT deficit owls, point to the capability of the Government to spend without issuing further debt, use coin seigniorage, or issue only short-term (3 months or less) debt as measures the Government can take to either eliminate Treasury bond interest costs altogether, or to lower them to a level arbitrarily close to zero. MMT deficit owls say: Governments sovereign in their own currency are “in charge” in the bond markets, not bond market vigilantes, whose very existence depends on the sufferance of the Government.
Significance: MMT says: long-term deficit reduction plans are a no-no and should be opposed! They’re based on false theories and put constraints on Federal deficit spending that are sure to damage the economy. Most importantly, they hinder progressives in solving real problems
4. Long Term Deficit Reduction Projections — Keynesian deficit dove position: Organizations like the CBO can produce useful long-term projections of deficits and debts that can be used as the basis for long-term deficit reduction plans
MMT position: Organizations like the CBO can produce long-term projections based on certain assumptions; but they aren’t and can’t be useful because the assumptions are always unrealistic, often self-contradictory, and always fail to take into account the emergent character of political and economic reality.
This is apparent when we look back at CBO, OMB, and other fiscal projections in the past. In 2002 and after, where were the surpluses as far as the eye can see being projected by CBO at the end of the Clinton Administration? Where were the projections of the housing bust of 2007 and thereafter and its effects back in 2006? Where were the projections in 2007 of the great crash of 2008? Where are the projections right now of what happens if the United States suddenly decides to stop issuing debt instruments while doubling its deficit spending? The answer is that projections like these could not be made by CBO because their projections are always based on assumptions that cease to hold because of their sensitivity to unanticipated political occurrences.
Significance: MMT says: Since long-term deficit projections are invalid, and since they don’t affect the Government’s fiscal capacity. Stop doing them! And stop worrying about them! Worry about jobs, poverty, education, energy foundations, health care, global warming, the environment, the rise of global plutocracy, etc. These are the real problems!
5. Funding Government spending — Keynesian deficit dove position: Government spending must, over the long-term, be funded by some combination of taxing and borrowing.
MMT position: Government spending isn’t “funded.” It occurs under the authority of the Government to issue currency, which authority is unlimited by any constitutional requirement for “funding.” There is therefore no intrinsic Government Budgetary Constraint, (GBC) either static or inter-temporal. This means that we never need to ask the question, “how will we pay for it?” when considering Government deficit spending. There are many things we do need to consider: the likely results of such spending, how it’s targeted, its implications for full employment; its impact on inflation. However, we never have to ask “how will we pay for it?” or worry that “the Government is broke and can’t afford it,” because the Government of the United States is the currency issuer, not the currency user and it always spends and simultaneously issues “currency” when it does so.
Significance: MMT says: We never have to worry about the Government finding financial resources or “how are we gonna pay for it!” So, we can just do what’s right when it comes to balancing off the real resources being used to create real wealth!
6. Social Security Solvency — Keynesian deficit dove position: The Keynesians accept the Government’s projections that Social Security will become insolvent and unable to pay full benefits by 2037. So they advocate doing something about that by raising the current salary cap on FICA taxes, and sometimes even raising the retirement age, though not by as much as deficit hawks want to see it raised. Even if a Keynesian deficit dove opposes all changes except for raising the FICA salary cap, they still acknowledge that there is a long-term SS FICA revenue shortfall that must be met either with increased taxes, or by cutting Social Security benefits, and which ought not to be handled through deficit spending.
MMT position: In contrast, MMT says that since Government spending isn’t and need not be “funded,” there is no Social Security revenue shortfall problem. The only problem is Congress and whether it is willing to guarantee Social Security at present or increased levels for retirees. Stephanie Kelton has put this very well:
”Funding Social Security is always and everywhere a political choice. The strongest evidence of this comes directly from the 2009 Annual Report of the Trustees. In that report, they predict gloom and doom for Social Security because “there is no provision in current lawthat would enable full payment of benefits, once the Trust Funds are exhausted”.In contrast, the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Funds are “both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet next year’s expected costs.”It is that simple. The former is in ‘trouble’ because the government isn’t committed to making the payments, and the latter gets a clean bill of health because the government will always make the payments.”
Significance: MMT says: There is no revenue shortfall problem for Social Security because SS payments need not be funded, only appropriated, by Congress. The real problem is a Congressional and presidential guts problem; not a Social Security revenue problem!
7. Proposed progressive reform programs — Keynesian deficit dove position: Whatever programs are proposed must fit within “progressive” deficit reduction plans and their projected glide path toward a declining public debt-to-GDP ratio. However, important the programs, the problems they address, and the expected benefits from them, the overall deficit reduction plan with its various targets must have priority and provides spending constraints for the various progressive reform programs.
MMT position: Progressive reform programs must always be evaluated in the specific economic and social context of the proposed legislation and the key issue is always the assessment of their likely impact and the real benefits and costs (including side effects) of this legislation. Considerations of the size of deficits, debt-to-GDP ratios, or trends in such statistics are not among the impacts that are relevant. Impacts on employment, inflation, and a whole host of social, economic, and political factors are all relevant. And whether or not there is deficit spending, is certainly important because Government deficit spending adds to private sector net financial assets. However, prioritizing a long-term deficit reduction plan over progressive measures that will result in greater benefits for Americans is fiscally irresponsible because it sacrifices real increases in well-being to an erroneous theory about non-existent Governmental Budgetary Constraints.
Since Keynesian deficit doves as well as deficit hawks are doing just that with their long-term deficit reduction plans, they too are committed to fiscal irresponsibility over the long term. And in their willingness to compromise with deficit hawks out of a shared belief that their really is a long-term deficit problem, they also are willing to allow a certain amount of deficit reduction activity in the short and medium term, even though they know this is likely to be damaging to our already suffering economy.
Significance: MMT says: Escape from real fiscal irresponsibility (trying to target abstract fiscal indicators of budget performance rather than real outcomes of spending) and fiscal unsustainability (pursuing fiscal policy that reduces real economic capacity by destroying industry, manufacturing, and people skills) to true fiscal responsibility (targeting government spending at full employment, price stability, and other real public purposes) and true fiscal sustainability (Government spending that at least maintains and generally increases the real, rather than nominal capacity of the economy to produce the goods, services, and conditions that people value and fulfill public purposes).
You know the deficit hawks. Now meet the deficit owls. - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/you-know-the-deficit-hawks-now-meet-the-deficit-owls/2011/08/25/gIQAHsoONR_blog.html?utm_term=.cfff235a171dYou know the deficit hawks. Now meet the deficit owls.
About 11 years ago, James K. “Jamie” Galbraith recalls, hundreds of his fellow economists laughed at him. To his face. In the White House.
A discounted poster presenting US dollars bills in circulation is seen in the visitor center of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington on August 09, 2011. (MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
What’s more, his father, John Kenneth Galbraith, was the most famous economist of his generation: a Harvard professor, best-selling author and confidante of the Kennedy family. Jamie has embraced a role as protector and promoter of the elder’s legacy.
But if Galbraith stood out on the panel, it was because of his offbeat message. Most viewed the budget surplus as opportune: a chance to pay down the national debt, cut taxes, shore up entitlements or pursue new spending programs.
He viewed it as a danger: If the government is running a surplus, money is accruing in government coffers rather than in the hands of ordinary people and companies, where it might be spent and help the economy.
“I said economists used to understand that the running of a surplus was fiscal (economic) drag,” he said, “and with 250 economists, they giggled.”
Galbraith says the 2001 recession — which followed a few years of surpluses — proves he was right.
A decade later, as the soaring federal budget deficit has sharpened political and economic differences in Washington, Galbraith is mostly concerned about the dangers of keeping it too small. He’s a key figure in a core debate among economists about whether deficits are important and in what way. The issue has divided the nation’s best-known economists and inspired pockets of passion in academic circles. Any embrace by policymakers of one view or the other could affect everything from employment to the price of goods to the tax code.
In contrast to “deficit hawks” who want spending cuts and revenue increases now in order to temper the deficit, and “deficit doves” who want to hold off on austerity measures until the economy has recovered, Galbraith is a deficit owl. Owls certainly don’t think we need to balance the budget soon. Indeed, they don’t concede we need to balance it at all. Owls see government spending that leads to deficits as integral to economic growth, even in good times.
The term isn’t Galbraith’s. It was coined by Stephanie Kelton, a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, who with Galbraith is part of a small group of economists who have concluded that everyone — members of Congress, think tank denizens, the entire mainstream of the economics profession — has misunderstood how the government interacts with the economy. If their theory — dubbed “Modern Monetary Theory” or MMT — is right, then everything we thought we knew about the budget, taxes and the Federal Reserve is wrong.
Keynesian roots
“Modern Monetary Theory” was coined by Bill Mitchell, an Australian economist and prominent proponent, but its roots are much older. The term is a reference to John Maynard Keynes, the founder of modern macroeconomics. In “A Treatise on Money,” Keynes asserted that “all modern States” have had the ability to decide what is money and what is not for at least 4,000 years.
This claim, that money is a “creature of the state,” is central to the theory. In a “fiat money” system like the one in place in the United States, all money is ultimately created by the government, which prints it and puts it into circulation. Consequently, the thinking goes, the government can never run out of money. It can always make more.
This doesn’t mean that taxes are unnecessary. Taxes, in fact, are key to making the whole system work. The need to pay taxes compels people to use the currency printed by the government. Taxes are also sometimes necessary to prevent the economy from overheating. If consumer demand outpaces the supply of available goods, prices will jump, resulting in inflation (where prices rise even as buying power falls). In this case, taxes can tamp down spending and keep prices low.
But if the theory is correct, there is no reason the amount of money the government takes in needs to match up with the amount it spends. Indeed, its followers call for massive tax cuts and deficit spending during recessions.
Warren Mosler, a hedge fund manager who lives in Saint Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands — in part because of the tax benefits — is one proponent. He’s perhaps better know for his sports car company and his frequent gadfly political campaigns (he earned a little less than one percent of the vote as an independent in Connecticut’s 2010 Senate race). He supports suspending the payroll tax that finances the Social Security trust fund and providing an $8 an hour government job to anyone who wants one to combat the current downturn.
The theory’s followers come mainly from a couple of institutions: the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s economics department and the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, both of which have received money from Mosler. But the movement is gaining followers quickly, largely through an explosion of economics blogs. Naked Capitalism, an irreverent and passionately written blog on finance and economics with nearly a million monthly readers, features proponents such as Kelton, fellow Missouri professor L. Randall Wray and Wartberg College professor Scott Fullwiler. So does New Deal 2.0, a wonky economics blog based at the liberal Roosevelt Institute think tank.
Their followers have taken to the theory with great enthusiasm and pile into the comment sections of mainstream economics bloggers when they take on the theory. Wray’s work has been picked up by Firedoglake, a major liberal blog, and the New York Times op-ed page. “The crisis helped, but the thing that did it was the blogosphere,” Wray says. “Because, for one thing, we could get it published. It’s very hard to publish anything that sounds outside the mainstream in the journals.”
Most notably, Galbraith has spread the message everywhere from the Daily Beast to Congress. He advised lawmakers including then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when the financial crisis hit in 2008. Last summer he consulted with a group of House members on the debt ceiling negotiations. He was one of the handful of economists consulted by the Obama administration as it was designing the stimulus package. “I think Jamie has the most to lose by taking this position,” Kelton says. “It was, I think, a really brave thing to do, because he has such a big name, and he’s so well-respected.”
Wray and others say they, too, have consulted with policymakers, and there is a definite sense among the group that the theory’s time is now. “Our Web presence, every few months or so it goes up another notch,” Fullwiler says.
A divisive theory
The idea that deficit spending can help to bring an economy out of recession is an old one. It was a key point in Keynes’s “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” It was the chief rationale for the 2009 stimulus package, and many self-identified Keynesians, such as former White House adviser Christina Romer and economist Paul Krugman, have argued that more is in order. There are, of course, detractors.
A key split among Keynesians dates to the 1930s. One set of economists, including the Nobel laureates John Hicks and Paul Samuelson, sought to incorporate Keynes’s insights into classical economics. Hicks built a mathematical model summarizing Keynes’s theory, and Samuelson sought to wed Keynesian macroeconomics (which studies the behavior of the economy as a whole) to conventional microeconomics (which looks at how people and businesses allocate resources). This set the stage for most macroeconomic theory since. Even today, “New Keynesians,” such as Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist who served as chief economic adviser to George W. Bush, and Romer’s husband, David, are seeking ways to ground Keynesian macroeconomic theory in the micro-level behavior of businesses and consumers.
Modern Monetary theorists hold fast to the tradition established by “post-Keynesians” such as Joan Robinson, Nicholas Kaldor and Hyman Minsky, who insisted Samuelson’s theory failed because its models acted as if, in Galbraith’s words, “the banking sector doesn’t exist.”
The connections are personal as well. Wray’s doctoral dissertation was advised by Minsky, and Galbraith studied with Robinson and Kaldor at the University of Cambridge. He argues that the theory is part of an “alternative tradition, which runs through Keynes and my father and Minsky.”
And while Modern Monetary Theory’s proponents take Keynes as their starting point and advocate aggressive deficit spending during recessions, they’re not that type of Keynesians. Even mainstream economists who argue for more deficit spending are reluctant to accept the central tenets of Modern Monetary Theory. Take Krugman, who regularly engages economists across the spectrum in spirited debate. He has argued that pursuing large budget deficits during boom times can lead to hyperinflation. Mankiw concedes the theory’s point that the government can never run out of money but doesn’t think this means what its proponents think it does.
Technically it’s true, he says, that the government could print streams of money and never default. The risk is that it could trigger a very high rate of inflation. This would “bankrupt much of the banking system,” he says. “Default, painful as it would be, might be a better option.”
Mankiw’s critique goes to the heart of the debate about Modern Monetary Theory — and about how, when and even whether to eliminate our current deficits.
When the government deficit spends, it issues bonds to be bought on the open market. If its debt load grows too large, mainstream economists say, bond purchasers will demand higher interest rates, and the government will have to pay more in interest payments, which in turn adds to the debt load.
To get out of this cycle, the Fed — which manages the nation’s money supply and credit and sits at the center of its financial system — could buy the bonds at lower rates, bypassing the private market. The Fed is prohibited from buying bonds directly from the Treasury — a legal rather than economic constraint. But the Fed would buy the bonds with money it prints, which means the money supply would increase. With it, inflation would rise, and so would the prospects of hyperinflation.
“You can’t just fund any level of government that you want from spending money, because you’ll get runaway inflation and eventually the rate of inflation will increase faster than the rate that you’re extracting resources from the economy,” says Karl Smith, an economist at the University of North Carolina. “This is the classic hyperinflation problem that happened in Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.”
The risk of inflation keeps most mainstream economists and policymakers on the same page about deficits: In the medium term — all else being equal — it’s critical to keep them small.
Economists in the Modern Monetary camp concede that deficits can sometimes lead to inflation. But they argue that this can only happen when the economy is at full employment — when all who are able and willing to work are employed and no resources (labor, capital, etc.) are idle. No modern example of this problem comes to mind, Galbraith says.
“The last time we had what could be plausibly called a demand-driven, serious inflation problem was probably World War I,” Galbraith says. “It’s been a long time since this hypothetical possibility has actually been observed, and it was observed only under conditions that will never be repeated.”
Critics’ rebuttals
According to Galbraith and the others, monetary policy as currently conducted by the Fed does not work. The Fed generally uses one of two levers to increase growth and employment. It can lower short-term interest rates by buying up short-term government bonds on the open market. If short-term rates are near-zero, as they are now, the Fed can try “quantitative easing,” or large-scale purchases of assets (such as bonds) from the private sector including longer-term Treasuries using money the Fed creates. This is what the Fed did in 2008 and 2010, in an emergency effort to boost the economy.
According to Modern Monetary Theory, the Fed buying up Treasuries is just, in Galbraith’s words, a “bookkeeping operation” that does not add income to American households and thus cannot be inflationary.
“It seemed clear to me that . . . flooding the economy with money by buying up government bonds . . . is not going to change anybody’s behavior,” Galbraith says. “They would just end up with cash reserves which would sit idle in the banking system, and that is exactly what in fact happened.”
The theorists just “have no idea how quantitative easing works,” says Joe Gagnon, an economist at the Peterson Institute who managed the Fed’s first round of quantitative easing in 2008. Even if the money the Fed uses to buy bonds stays in bank reserves — or money that’s held in reserve — increasing those reserves should still lead to increased borrowing and ripple throughout the system.
Mainstreamers are equally baffled by another claim of the theory: that budget surpluses in and of themselves are bad for the economy. According to Modern Monetary Theory, when the government runs a surplus, it is a net saver, which means that the private sector is a net debtor. The government is, in effect, “taking money from private pockets and forcing them to make that up by going deeper into debt,” Galbraith says, reiterating his White House comments.
The mainstream crowd finds this argument as funny now as they did when Galbraith presented it to Clinton. “I have two words to answer that: Australia and Canada,” Gagnon says. “If Jamie Galbraith would look them up, he would see immediate proof he’s wrong. Australia has had a long-running budget surplus now, they actually have no national debt whatsoever, they’re the fastest-growing, healthiest economy in the world.” Canada, similarly, has run consistent surpluses while achieving high growth.
To even care about such questions, Galbraith says, marked him as “a considerable eccentric” when he arrived from Cambridge to get a PhD at Yale, which had a more conventionally Keynesian economics department. Galbraith credits Samuelson and his allies’ success to a “mass-marketing of economic doctrine, of which Samuelson was the great master . . . which is something the Cambridge school could never have done.”
The mainstream economists are loath to give up any ground, even in cases such as the so-called “Cambridge capital controversy” of the 1960s. Samuelson debated post-Keynesians and, by his own admission, lost. Such matters have been, in Galbraith’s words, “airbrushed, like Trotsky” from the history of economics.
But MMT’s own relationship to real-world cases can be a little hit-or-miss. Mosler, the hedge fund manager, credits his role in the movement to an epiphany in the early 1990s, when markets grew concerned that Italy was about to default. Mosler figured that Italy, which at that time still issued its own currency, the lira, could not default as long as it had the ability to print more liras. He bet accordingly, and when Italy did not default, he made a tidy sum. “There was an enormous amount of money to be made if you could bring yourself around to the idea that they couldn’t default,” he says.
Later that decade, he learned there was also a lot of money to be lost. When similar fears surfaced about Russia, he again bet against default. Despite having its own currency, Russia defaulted, forcing Mosler to liquidate one of his funds and wiping out much of his $850 million in investments in the country. Mosler credits this to Russia’s fixed exchange rate policy of the time and insists that if it had only acted like a country with its own currency, default could have been avoided.
But the case could also prove what critics insist: Default, while technically always avoidable, is sometimes the best available option.
ケルトン教授 Stephanie Kelton MMT(Modern Monetary Theory)現代金融理論
参考：
ステファニー・ケルトン教授来日及び研究会開催[2019/7/17]のお知らせ — 経済学101
726 sorata31 (ﾜｯﾁｮｲ 8b24-Rk9P)[sage] 2019/06/19(水) 14:07:15.83 ID:C62wCinl0ケルトン教授が三橋TVに出演とのこと。
https://youtu.be/CY0xUs_gqZE
【藤井聡】ケルトン教授を招聘した、ＭＭＴ国際シンポジウム[2019年7月16日]を開催します 表現者クライテリオン
https://the-criterion.jp/mail-magazine/m20190610/
FUNCTIONAL FINANCE AND THE FEDERAL DEBT Author(s): ABBA P. LERNER 1943
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/03/functional-finance-and-federal-debt.html
abba lerner The economic steering wheel 1941
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/06/abba-lerner.html
ケルトン教授 Stephanie Kelton (born 1969)MMT(Modern Monetary Theory)現代貨幣理論
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/03/mmt.html
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton
別バージョンあり
Stephanie Kelton: What Is A Deficit Owl - YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IW-VapeCUco
Stephanie Kelton's MMT Coloring Book 2013
1:14
MMT Coloring Book
What Does the Owl Say?
#1 THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIKE YOUR FAMILY
#2 CHINA IS NOT OUR BANKER
#3 UNCLE SAM IS NOT BROKE
#4 THE U.S. WILL NOT END UP LIKE GREECE
#5 CUTTING SPENDING WILL NOT CREATE JOBS
#6 A BALANCED BUDGET IS NOT PRO-GROWTH
#7 SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT BROKEN
#8 DEFICITS DO NOT TAKE AWAY SAVINGS
#9 GOVERNMENT DEBT DOES NOT BURDEN OUR CHILDREN
#10 GOVERNMENT DEFICITS ARE NOT SCARY
The public is badly misinformed on issues related to our monetary
system, government deficits and the national debt.
GET THE FACTS
Teach the children well ( with lyrics) - Crosby Stills - YouTube
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/06/2019526.html
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/06/keltoncnbc.html
The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and Creating an Economy for the People 2020/6/9
http://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-deficit-myth-stephanie-kelton.html
MMT
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/03/mmt-on-falling-neutral-real-rates.html
転載：MMT物語（その２）： クルーグマン教授のMMT批判とケルトン教授の反論
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/05/mmt-mmt.html
ケルトンへの反応
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/05/blog-post_7.html
ケルトンへの反応
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/05/blog-post_7.html
～社会科学の系譜とMMT～
１９００年 世界恐慌 ２０００年 世界金融危機
人類学 ┏イネス ポランニー グレーバー
┃グリアソン インガム
社会学 ┃ジンメル
リスト ⬇︎ ウェーバー
ドイツ ┃ ⬆︎
┏歴史学派┃クナップ（➡︎ケインズ、ラーナー、コモンズ） ［☆＝ＭＭＴ］
⬇︎ ┗┓
┗旧制度学派┃コモンズ （ジョン・ガルブレイス）➡︎ ジェームス・ガルブレイス☆
┃ ┃ （ケインズ➡︎┛）
マルクス ┃ ┃ カレツキ━━━━┓ ラヴォア
┃ ┗━━➡︎┓ ⬇︎ ゴドリー
ケインズ ┗━━━━━➡︎ケインズ ➡︎ ミンスキー ➡︎ レイ☆、ケルトン☆
ポスト・ケインズ派┏━━┛┗➡︎ラーナー⬆︎ ミッチェル☆、キーン
┏━┛ ┃
シュンペーター┃シュンペーター━━━━┛ カルドア ムーア
┃ グッドハート
実務家 ⬆︎ エクルズ オカシオ＝コルテス☆
┗ホートリー（ケインズ） （リスト） モズラー☆
日本 ┗➡︎中野剛志☆、三橋貴明☆
西田昌司☆、藤井聡☆
１９００年 世界恐慌 ２０００年 世界金融危機
人類学 ┏イネス ポランニー グレーバー
┃グリアソン インガム
社会学 ┃ジンメル
リスト ⬇︎ ウェーバー
ドイツ ┃ ⬆︎
┏歴史学派┃クナップ（➡︎ケインズ、ラーナー、コモンズ） ［☆＝ＭＭＴ］
⬇︎ ┗┓
┗旧制度学派┃コモンズ （ジョン・ガルブレイス）➡︎ ジェームス・ガルブレイス☆
┃ ┃ （ケインズ➡︎┛）
マルクス ┃ ┃ カレツキ━━━━┓ ラヴォア
┃ ┗━━➡︎┓ ⬇︎ ゴドリー
ケインズ ┗━━━━━➡︎ケインズ ➡︎ ミンスキー ➡︎ レイ☆、ケルトン☆
ポスト・ケインズ派┏━━┛┗➡︎ラーナー⬆︎ ミッチェル☆、キーン
┏━┛ ┃
シュンペーター┃シュンペーター━━━━┛ カルドア ムーア
┃ グッドハート
実務家 ⬆︎ エクルズ オカシオ＝コルテス☆
┗ホートリー（ケインズ） （リスト） モズラー☆
日本 ┗➡︎中野剛志☆、三橋貴明☆
西田昌司☆、藤井聡☆
景気が悪化する中、朝日新聞がMMTを「曲論」と断定しました | BEST T!MESコラム 中野剛志氏による反論
2019年5月20日
少し調べれば、MMTの「理路整然とした経済論文」がけっこう出てきますよ。例えば、ステファニー・ケルトン（旧姓ベル）教授の論文とか。
（Stephanie Bell, ' Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?', Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 603-620.）
ウェイン・ゴドリー
https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2018/10/22/stephanie-kelton-oct-15-2018/
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=ja&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unibertsitatea.net%2Fblogak%2Fheterodoxia%2F2018%2F10%2F22%2Fstephanie-kelton-oct-15-2018%2F
Stephanie Kelton: The Public Purse 2018?
https://youtu.be/6IBEoWSiTHc提唱者・ケルトン氏に聞く インフレを恐れるな/雇用創出で赤字縮小 2019年4月13日
提唱者・ケルトン氏に聞く
インフレを恐れるな/雇用創出で赤字縮小
【ワシントン=河浪武史】現代貨幣理論（MMT）の提唱者であるニューヨーク州立大教授のステファニー・ケルトン氏は日本経済新聞の取材に「日本が『失われた20年』といわれるのはインフレを極端に恐れたからだ」と述べ、日本がデフレ脱却を確実にするには財政支出の拡大が必要との認識を示した。
――MMTは何を目指しているのですか。
「完全雇用と物価安定を達成するには金融政策ではなく、財政政策への依存度を高める必要がある。インフラや教育、研究開発に投資すれば国の長期的な潜在成長率が高まるのは、経済学の基本論理だ」
「米での目的の一つは財政で完全雇用の機会をつくることだ。政府が雇用を保障し、1千万人が現れたら1千万人を雇う。景気が回復すれば雇用は民間セクターに移り、財政赤字も縮小する」
――ハイパーインフレへの懸念も指摘されています。
「財政拡張策にインフレ防止条項を入れておけばいい。例えば5年間のインフラ投資計画を通したとしても、2年目にインフレの兆しが出れば支出を取りやめる。MMTは財政で物価をコントロールする」
――ドルが急落するリスクもあります。
「MMTは米経済の潜在能力を最大限引き出す政策だ。多くの投資を受け入れる余地を生み、ドルの下落はありえない」
――日本の政府債務は国内総生産（GDP）の240%と主要国で最悪です。それでもMMTによれば、財政再建は不要ですか。
「日本政府と日銀はMMTを長年実証してきた。日銀は日本国債の40%を買い上げ、金融政策で長期金利も抑制している。政府債務が問題なら、実体経済に問題が出るはずだ」
――MMTの最大の懸念材料であるインフレをどう防ぐのですか。
「日本が減税や歳出増で財政を拡張しても、現時点で供給不足によるインフレに近づいているとは思っていない。そもそもインフレは問題なのか。仮に3～4%のインフレになるリスクがあっても、財政支出で長期停滞から脱却した方がいいのではないか。日本は『失われた20年』といわれるが、それはインフレを極端に恐れたからだ」
8B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B1%E3%83%AB%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3
ステファニー・ケルトン（英語: Stephanie Kelton、1969年10月10日 - ）は、アメリカの経済学者、ニューヨーク州立大学ストーニーブルック校教授。現代貨幣理論の主唱者[1][2][3]。
| ポスト・ケインズ派経済学 | |
|---|---|
ステファニー・ケルトン
| |
| 生誕 | 1969年10月10日（49歳） |
| 研究機関 | ニューヨーク州立大学ストーニーブルック校 |
| 母校 | カリフォルニア州立大学サクラメント校 (B.S., B.A., 1995) ケンブリッジ大学(M.Phil, 1997) ニュースクール大学(Ph.D., 2001) |
| 実績 | 現代貨幣理論 (Modern Monetary Theory) |
人物・略歴
講義の様子
ケルトンは、カリフォルニア州立大学サクラメント校で経済学を専攻し、1995年に学士と修士の学位を取得した。その後、ロータリー財団の奨学金を獲得し、ケンブリッジ大学で経済学を専攻して1997年に修士号を取得し、更に、2001年にニュースクール大学で経済学の博士号 (Ph.D. in Economics) を取得した[4]。
2016年のアメリカ合衆国大統領選挙の予備選挙でヒラリー・クリントンに敗れたバーニー・サンダース上院議員が予備選挙後に設立したシンクタンクであるサンダース研究所の顧問を務めている[1][5]。
2017年からニューヨーク州立大学ストーニーブルック校の教授を務めている。
現代貨幣理論
論文
- Bell (Kelton), Stephanie, "Can Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?", Levy Economics Institute, July 1998
- Bell (Kelton), Stephanie, "The role of the state and the hierarchy of money", Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 25, 2001, pp. 149–163
脚注
- ^ a b c ロイター通信（2019年3月8日）「「財政赤字は悪くない」、大統領選にらみ米国で経済学論争」
- ^ a b ロイター通信（2019年3月8日）「焦点：財政拡大理論「MMT」、理想の地は日本か」
- ^ a b 東洋経済オンライン（2019年4月2日）「異端の経済理論｢MMT｣を恐れてはいけない理由 すべての経済活動は｢借金から始まっている｣」
- ^ 公式ウェブサイトの「経歴」
- ^ https://www.sandersinstitute.com/about/kelton
- ^ 日本経済新聞(2019年4月13日)「提唱者・ケルトン氏に聞く インフレを恐れるな/雇用創出で赤字縮小」
関連項目
外部リンク
- 公式ウェブサイト（英語）
- MMTerは比喩を駆使する・ラーナー源流の自動運転自動車の比喩↓Lerner :The Economics of Employment, 1951（Lerner, A. 1941. The economic steering wheel. University Review, June, 2-8.の改訂版再録）雇用の経済学 (1965年) (現代経済学名著選集〈第12 明治大学経済学研究会編〉)Mathew Forstater:Functional Finance and Full Employment: Lessons from Lerner for Today?
The Jerome Levy Economics Institute July 1999
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b75d/0be6e3e950e19e9a5902a31082ca93c560e9.pdfKelton :Common currency lessons from EuropeHave member states forsaken their economic steering wheels? Stephanie Bell（Dollarization: Lessons from Europe for the Americas 2003に所収）Mitchell :
・レイに始まるバスタブ、シンク↓
Wray:2012#1.3
http://econdays.net/?p=9980
Kelton:The Economy Is Like A Bathtub 2016/9/29 Kelton2019https://youtu.be/mYVaR2g0M_0https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1133002891201933313/pu/vid/1280x720/WhePUmi_ZpvaVkpH.mp4
・ミッチェルも新著2019#14:213（＆5:69）で紹介した100匹の犬と95本の骨↓Mitchell:“The tale of 100 dogs and 95 bones”Warren Mosler :Unemployment, dogs and bones (2017)
https://youtu.be/2vTjLwYCi24
http://www.fullemployment.net/archive.php
・ケルトンのハトでも鷹でもないフクロウ↓
Kelton:Stephanie Kelton's MMT Coloring Book 2013
https://youtu.be/oLntiX4AeWc 1:14What Is A Deficit Owl 2016
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IW-VapeCUco
https://i.gyazo.com/6810b0aaf386adbc583e605639c21a17.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_982w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/02/17/Business/Graphics/w-mmt2.jpg?t=20170517a
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSRcVbN-zby_49T8PRV1hzYFwJkAGbiAIrxn9nL2b0wShmQXnce6Yrdrg5hDDmDEFzgojMuPvLGEbIlFleDRS5WOgH1IWKIgVx7XrPBPLIsnU4atsXXqiIcsJ4Pq5rJe0RXYFx/s1600/IMG_1481.PNG
https://www.washingtonpost.com/mainstream-economics-and-modern-monetary-theory-a-family-tree/2012/02/17/gIQAiy6RKR_graphic.html?utm_term=.780cbb19ebe0(Mitchell#21:333 参照)Keynes was a master of argument, but even he did not always win. More recentlyDeirdre McCloskey made a similar claim in her book The Rhetoric of Economics (1985).Her point is that evidence alone is not decisive; ‘rhetoric’, the art of discourse, is also important.(Mitchell 2019 #2:32)
ミッチェル2019(ラーナー機能的財政の基本的な諸関係を改変)：＿＿＿＿＿＿
｜ ｜・フクロウの比喩(第三の道)
｜ 政策 ｜［Ｅ］２０～２４
｜＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・自動運転のハンドルの比喩(金融緩和のアクセル、
＿＿＿｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿(消費税のブレーキ、など自動車の比喩は有効か)
／ ＼
／ ＼［Ｄ］１７～１９
／ Ｅ非雇用 ＼
／ ／雇用 ＼・95本の骨/100匹の犬の比喩
／＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＼
｜ Ｙ所得 ｜［Ｃ］１１～１６
｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
｜ ｜ ｜ Ｉ投資 ｜ １５.5
｜Ｃ（Ｙ） ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・投資＝もう一本の蛇口？
｜消費 ｜ ｜Ｉ（ｉ） ｜ ｉ利子率 ｜ １２.5，２５.5
｜性向 ｜ ｜投資 ｜ ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
｜ ｜ ｜機会 ｜ ｜ｉ ｜ ｜Ｍ ｜［Ｂ］ ９～１０
｜＿＿＿｜ ｜＿＿＿｜ （Ｍ，Ｙ） ｜貨幣｜・バスタブ、シンクの比喩
（［Ａ］） ［Ｆ］ 流動性選好
２５～２６ ／
／
歴史［Ａ］１～８,［Ｇ］２７～３０,［Ｈ］３１～３３現状，未来
ミッチェル2019(ラーナー機能的財政の基本的な諸関係を改変)：MMTerは比喩を駆使している
＿＿＿＿＿＿ https://youtu.be/oLntiX4AeWc
｜ ｜・フクロウの比喩(第三の道)☆
｜ 政策 ｜［Ｅ］２０～２４
｜＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・自動運転のハンドルの比喩(金融緩和のアクセル、
＿＿＿｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿(消費税のブレーキ、など自動車の比喩は有効か)
／ ＼https://i.gyazo.com/4bf0ff284de8ec6f6f1a1225bd31110f.jpg
／ ＼［Ｄ］１７～１９
／ Ｅ非雇用 ＼
／ ／雇用 ＼・95本の骨/100匹の犬の比喩☆
／＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＼https://youtu.be/2vTjLwYCi24
｜ Ｙ所得 ｜［Ｃ］１１～１６
｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
｜ ｜ ｜ Ｉ投資 ｜
｜Ｃ（Ｙ） ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・投資＝もう一本の蛇口？
｜消費 ｜ ｜Ｉ（ｉ） ｜ ｉ利子率 ｜
｜性向 ｜ ｜投資 ｜ ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
｜ ｜ ｜機会 ｜ ｜ｉ ｜ ｜Ｍ ｜［Ｂ］ ９～１０
｜＿＿＿｜ ｜＿＿＿｜ （Ｍ，Ｙ） ｜貨幣｜・バスタブ、シンクの比喩
（［Ａ］） ［Ｆ］ 流動性選好 https://youtu.be/mYVaR2g0M_0
２５～２６ ／
／
歴史［Ａ］１～８, ［Ｇ］２７～３０, ［Ｈ］３１～３３現状，未来
☆はMitchell2019で紹介
ラーナーは投資と消費で２系統の循環ポンプをイメージしているhttps://i.gyazo.com/3eb430b52f54d265597af06cdc119ea5.png
雇用の経済学より
天気予報と経済予測は似ている（グッドウィンを参照）
キーン 金融危機 https://i.gyazo.com/5f6aacb82fbe6e84a2bfab7e673524de.png
ローレンツ バタフライ効果 https://i.gyazo.com/0aacdca901526b03569b78447888c335.png
ラーナー『雇用の経済学』#8のレンガの家の比喩をベースにしたhttps://i.gyazo.com/143564bc8c2461751cf8010cc481182b.jpgミッチェル2019(ラーナー機能的財政の基本的な諸関係を改変)：MMTerは比喩を駆使する＿＿＿＿＿＿ https://youtu.be/oLntiX4AeWc｜ ｜・フクロウの比喩＆レンズの比喩｜ 政策 ｜［Ｅ］２０～２４ https://youtu.be/XK13evETnB4｜＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・自動運転ハンドル(さらに金融緩和アクセル、＿＿＿｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿消費税ブレーキ)といった自動車の比喩／ ＼［Ｄ］１７～１９／ Ｅ非雇用 ＼／ ／雇用 ＼・95本の骨/100匹の犬の比喩☆／＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＼https://youtu.be/2vTjLwYCi24｜ Ｙ所得 ｜［Ｃ］１１～１６｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜｜ ｜ ｜ Ｉ投資 ｜｜Ｃ（Ｙ） ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜・投資＝もう一本の蛇口？｜消費 ｜ ｜Ｉ（ｉ） ｜ ｉ利子率 ｜｜性向 ｜ ｜投資 ｜ ｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜｜ ｜ ｜機会 ｜ ｜ｉ ｜ ｜Ｍ ｜［Ｂ］ ９～１０｜＿＿＿｜ ｜＿＿＿｜ （Ｍ，Ｙ） ｜貨幣｜・バスタブ、シンクの比喩（［Ａ］） ［Ｆ］ 流動性選好 https://youtu.be/mYVaR2g0M_0２５～２６ ／／歴史［Ａ］１～８, ［Ｇ］２７～３０, ［Ｈ］３１～３３現状，未来☆はMitchell2019で紹介ラーナー『雇用の経済学』#8のレンガの家の比喩をベースにしたhttps://i.gyazo.com/143564bc8c2461751cf8010cc481182b.jpgラーナーは投資と消費で２系統の循環ポンプをイメージしているhttps://i.gyazo.com/3eb430b52f54d265597af06cdc119ea5.png雇用の経済学より天気予報と経済予測は似ている（グッドウィンを参照）キーン 金融危機 https://i.gyazo.com/5f6aacb82fbe6e84a2bfab7e673524de.pngローレンツ バタフライ効果 https://i.gyazo.com/0aacdca901526b03569b78447888c335.pngミッチェルはレンズの比喩も使う#2:32 トーマス・クーン Thomas Kuhnの1962年の本 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions（邦題：科学革命の構造）207,bill…（神経生物学、考古学、経済学といった）学問分野は、既に構築された’パラダイム’の中で動いている。’パラダイム’は哲学者のThomas Kuhnの1962年の本 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions（邦題：科学革命の構造）の中で、”当座の間、専門家のコミュニティに対して定型問題とその解決法を提供する広範に認知された科学的業績”と定義されている。典型的には、パラダイムと定義される知識体系は”初歩的及び発展的な科学の教科書で…詳説される”（Kuhn, 1996: 10）。Kuhnは、”科学的”活動が直線的なプロセス…「研究者が新しい実証的証拠を基礎的知識に追加し、以前まで受け入られらていた考えを置き換えるというようなプロセスである」という考えに挑んだ。そうではなく、支配的な観点は、受け入れがたい例外に直面し、革命（パラダイムシフト）が起こるまでは強固に残るのだとKuhnは主張した。新しいパラダイムは、古い理論が受け入れられないものであることを暴き、新しい概念を導入し、新しい疑問を立て、新しい言語や説明的な比喩を用いて新しい考え方を学生たちに提供するのである。一度転換が起きれば、古い理論はもはや確立された知識とはみなされない。Kuhnはまた、支配的なパラダイムの中の専門家たちによる衆愚政治のようなものが存在することと、彼らが論理的ないし実証的な例外に直面しても自身らの見解に熱烈に固執するということを記している。Academic disciplines (such as, neurobiologists, archaeology, economists etc.) work within organised ‘paradigms’, which philosopher Thomas Kuhn identified in his 1962 book – The Structure of Scientific Revolutions – as “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners”.Typically, the body of knowledge that defines the paradigm are “recounted … by science textbooks, elementary and advanced” (Kuhn, 1996: 10).Kuhn challenged the notion that ‘scientific’ activity is a linear process, whereby scholars add new empirically supported facts to the knowledge base to replace previously accepted notions.Rather, Kuhn said that dominant viewpoints persist until they are confronted with insurmountable anomalies, whereupon a revolution (paradigm shift) occurs. The new paradigm exposes the old theories as inapplicable, introduces new concepts, asks new questions and provides students with a new way of thinking with a new language and explanatory metaphors.Once supplanted, the old theories are no longer considered valid knowledge. Kuhn also noted that there is a sort of mob rule among practitioners within a dominant paradigm and they vehemently hold onto their views even in the face of logical or empirical anomaly.…MMTが与えてくれるのは、我々が住んでいる世界を見るための新しいレンズであり、我々の日常生活の中で重要な金融システム運用についてである。この新しいレンズは、日常の基礎で経済に何が起きているかについての新しい洞察を広げる。MMT的世界は、移行すべき何かなのではなく、既にそこに存在するものなのだ。新しい強力なレンズとしてのMMTは、新自由主義の物語では不明瞭になっている点についても明らかにしてくれる。What MMT provides is a new lens to view the world we live in and the monetary system operations that are important in our daily lives.This new lens opens up new insights into what is going on in the economy on a daily basis. It’s not something to move to, it already is.MMT, as a new powerful lens, makes things that are obscured by neo-liberal narratives more transparent.MMT Is A Lens, Not A Regime (2017)Michell's lecturehttps://youtu.be/XK13evETnB4 [4:21]レンズの比喩はフクロウの比喩のコンセプトに近いMMT- the alternative to the fake world ...・Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) offers a different lens for understanding how the monetary system operates.・It helps us better understand the choices available to a currency-issuing government.・It is not a regime but a perspective on reality.・It lifts the veil imposed by neo-liberal ideology and forces the real questions and choices out in the open.Centre of Full Employment and Equity http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee
posted by yoji at 3:16 午前
Deirdre McCloskey made a similar claim in her book The Rhetoric of Economics (1985).
Her point is that evidence alone is not decisive; ‘rhetoric’, the art of discourse, is also important.》
(Mitchell 2019 #2:32)